Money velocity and Internet poker

I don’t know if this is a debate contribution or it is a question. What I mean is; I don’t know if this subject has been discussed before.

A general (wrong) assumption is; when you have a surplus of 100 $ in an Internet poker room, you have paid a 5 $ rake (assuming the rake is 5 %). Because, when you have a 100 $ surplus, you have won say 200 $, lost 90 $ and paid a 10 $ rake.

Thought, in limit, I don’t think it is possible to have a surplus of 50 % of your winning. I think 10 % is more realistic.

If you only have 10 % surplus of your winning and you have a 100 $ surplus, you have paid a lot more rake. To win 100 $ you most have a 1000 $ velocity, and therefore you have paid a 50 $ rake.

I think the conclusion here is you should try to minimize the money velocity. For example don’t raise TT or JQs preflop, and play even tighter than books recommend.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject, or does anyone know any literature?

Martin Carlsson
Aalborg, Denmark

[pudley4]

I'm a winning 5/10 player. IIRC the rake I've paid is somewhere between 50% and 100% as much as I've won. (Example: I've won $2000, I've paid between $1000 and $2000 in rake).

It really doesn't make sense to try to play tighter - if a hand wins .001 BB/hand, you should play it. This value already takes the rake into consideration. The only time you should consider folding these hands is if your bankroll isn't sufficient to withstand the increased variance.

I would never consider tightening up just to save money on rake. TT is a must raise because you dont want 5 different players with 4 overcards in their hand all in the pot just because you dont raise to save .25 in rake or whatever it is. Why would you change a part of your game to save on rake when it will just result in you losing more money? I know tight is right, and im not saying you should be loose, but you should be raising with raising hands because i feel that aggressive is sometimes more important than tight. Although im a NL player, i think it is the same for limit too...

[Webster]

Rake is somethign that is always there and you really can do nothing about it - I LOVE paying rake - if I never paid any rake I would never win, right?

It's a tax on your earnings - pay no tax means you have no earnings. Fish pay more tax because thay get to play more hands. Tight players pay less tax BUT - win more money.

Worrying about rake is just that - a needless worry.

Pretend it doesn't exist; it is simply the cost of doing business.

EDIT: It wouldn't make sense to work less just because you are paying income tax at a regular job.

[UATrewqaz]

The rake bothers me and most others because it's the one opponent you cannot beat and the one that you always lose money to, no matter how well you play.

[Eidal]

[ QUOTE ]
The rake bothers me and most others because it's the one opponent you cannot beat and the one that you always lose money to, no matter how well you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop thinking of it as an opponent and think of rake as your side of the bargain in the contract between you and the casino.

They provide all the infrastructure involved in your bb/100 - and they aren't doing it out of good will.

[Nigel]

I'm amazed at the replies so far in this thread.

The rake can most certainly make some marginal hands not worth playing.

Nigel

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm amazed at the replies so far in this thread.

The rake can most certainly make some marginal hands not worth playing.

Nigel

[/ QUOTE ]

very true but TT and QJs are far from marginal